I don't want to sound paranoid but this is done on purpose. It is a globalist agenda. This add campaign was funded by UN to encourage women in Germany to wear hijabs https://youtu.be/pu9K2TCON58
I am sure there are feminists who wear hijab for tolerance now.
"Despite the left’s recent efforts to re-brand the hijab as a form of female empowerment, it’s actually a symbol of oppression. “Well-intentioned women are wearing headscarves in interfaith “solidarity.” But, to us, they stand on the wrong side of a lethal war of ideas that sexually objectifies women as vessels for honor and temptation, absolving men of personal responsibility,” writes Asra Q. Nomani, founder of the Muslim Reform Movement. The German television ad is extremely revealing. “Tolerance” means submission. “Diversity” means the willful extinction of German culture."
What really gets me is the hubris they're doing. It's clear now that mass immigration is becoming increasingly unpopular there, and is promoting a backlash among the Far Rights and even center-right parties there, and also among their center-left voters too as well. The key problem right now is that there are no center-left parties (outside of Slovakia or Lithuania) willing to address the concerns that voters have about open borders, their nation's cultural integrity or about the resulting lower wages / welfare transfers / higher housing costs, etc.
Robert Fico (Prime Minister of Slovakia) is an interesting aberration from this trend however. He's the leader of the social democratic party there, but tends to form coalitions with the nationalist parties ("xenophobic right" as they are slandered) there.
Now that they're talking about this being a cell, it's worth noting that the last Daesh offense back in November 2015 came at a time when they were doing exceptionally awful on the battlefield. If the current deal holds between the various powers in Syria, particularly Erdogan not letting every Jihadi cross the border into Syria, it's very possible that Daesh could cease to exist in Syria and Iraq before the year is out. Given they're at a period of unprecedented weakness, this is almost certainly only the beginning of another offensive on their behalf. Hopefully the US cracking down on this particular network will allow us to pierce through to other networks operating in Europe.
even if you will destroy ISIS there will be other group which will take its place the problem people cant realise is they dont fight organization they fight ideology.
This really misses the mark. We are witnesses to a long slow civil war within Islam. Our primary goal is to not give the bad side easy victories and prestige. They do that when they make the west cower. Crushing ISIS is not merely an end in itself, it is *part of* crushing the ideology because it helps the good guys win the prestige war within Islam. We don't have to invade and reform, but we must respond to attacks in a decisive way.
Dan, I agree that this is a war of ideas (I'll throw in that it's one that the various Western nations appear to have no idea how to wage, which may explain why the majority of the gains against Jihadism since 9/11 have been on the battlefield), and that Daesh's influence on these noxious Jihadist trends will outlive their base of operations in Iraq and Syria; I was careful to say they would cease to exist in Iraq and Syria, instead of as an organization, precisely because of that. While Daesh is part of a larger Jihadist ideology, the innovations they've made in Jihad, and the appeal their call has when compared to other Jihadist groups, does make their destruction a worthy goal for those who wish to mitigate this threat. As cold as this may sound, the true danger posed by Daesh's tactics isn't their brutality; it's the mass appeal their particular call to Jihad has had when compared to other Islamist organizations.
With that said, it's fair to point out that the rise of Daesh being a threat, or an opportunity, varies from country to country. The threat and opportunity posed by Daesh is different for the United States and Israel. In the case of your homeland, Dan, reservations about whether Daesh being destroyed will improve Israel's situation are well justified. If Iran and Israel continue to remain enemies, Iran and its sphere plainly poses a greater threat to Israel than Daesh and the Sunnis at this point. Considering Daesh has effectively rolled back many of Iran's gains in Iraq, is currently tying up Hizbullah in Syria and Iraq (which also ensures Hizbullah continues to lose standing among the Sunni in Lebanon), and has shown no real interest in attacking Israel, Israel's interests in the region could very well be better served by Daesh remaining. Destroying Daesh will inevitably strengthen Iran's position in the region.
(LK, this might be a double post, in which case, my apologies)
Dan, I agree that this is a war of ideas (I'll throw in that it's one that the various Western nations appear to have no idea how to wage, which may explain why the majority of the gains against Jihadism since 9/11 have been on the battlefield), and that Daesh's influence on these noxious Jihadist trends will outlive their base of operations in Iraq and Syria; I was careful to say they would cease to exist in Iraq and Syria, instead of as an organization, precisely because of that. While Daesh is part of a larger Jihadist ideology, the innovations they've made in Jihad, and the appeal their call has when compared to other Jihadist groups, does make their destruction a worthy goal for those who wish to mitigate this threat. As cold as this may sound, the true danger posed by Daesh's tactics isn't their brutality; it's the mass appeal their particular call to Jihad has had when compared to other Islamist organizations.
With that said, it's fair to point out that the rise of Daesh being a threat, or an opportunity, varies from country to country. The threat and opportunity posed by Daesh is different for the United States and Israel. In the case of your homeland, Dan, reservations about whether Daesh being destroyed will improve Israel's situation are well justified. If Iran and Israel continue to remain enemies, Iran and it's sphere plainly poses a greater threat to Israel than Daesh and the Sunnis at this point. Considering Daesh has effectively rolled back many of Iran's gains in Iraq, is currently tying up Hizbullah in Syria and Iraq (which also ensures Hizbullah continues to lose standing among the Sunni in Lebanon), and has shown no real interest in attacking Israel, Israel's interests in the region could very well be better served by Daesh remaining. Destroying Daesh will inevitably strengthen Iran's position in the region.
I don't want to sound paranoid but this is done on purpose. It is a globalist agenda. This add campaign was funded by UN to encourage women in Germany to wear hijabs https://youtu.be/pu9K2TCON58
ReplyDeleteI am sure there are feminists who wear hijab for tolerance now.
"Despite the left’s recent efforts to re-brand the hijab as a form of female empowerment, it’s actually a symbol of oppression. “Well-intentioned women are wearing headscarves in interfaith “solidarity.” But, to us, they stand on the wrong side of a lethal war of ideas that sexually objectifies women as vessels for honor and temptation, absolving men of personal responsibility,” writes Asra Q. Nomani, founder of the Muslim Reform Movement. The German television ad is extremely revealing. “Tolerance” means submission. “Diversity” means the willful extinction of German culture."
What really gets me is the hubris they're doing. It's clear now that mass immigration is becoming increasingly unpopular there, and is promoting a backlash among the Far Rights and even center-right parties there, and also among their center-left voters too as well. The key problem right now is that there are no center-left parties (outside of Slovakia or Lithuania) willing to address the concerns that voters have about open borders, their nation's cultural integrity or about the resulting lower wages / welfare transfers / higher housing costs, etc.
ReplyDeleteRobert Fico (Prime Minister of Slovakia) is an interesting aberration from this trend however. He's the leader of the social democratic party there, but tends to form coalitions with the nationalist parties ("xenophobic right" as they are slandered) there.
East Europeans were insulated to some extent from the Postmodernist / regressive left political movements.
DeleteBut even somebody like Zizek I find barely watchable, I am afraid.
Have you banned Kevin? No-one has called you a racist or Islamophobe yet.
ReplyDeleteNow that they're talking about this being a cell, it's worth noting that the last Daesh offense back in November 2015 came at a time when they were doing exceptionally awful on the battlefield. If the current deal holds between the various powers in Syria, particularly Erdogan not letting every Jihadi cross the border into Syria, it's very possible that Daesh could cease to exist in Syria and Iraq before the year is out. Given they're at a period of unprecedented weakness, this is almost certainly only the beginning of another offensive on their behalf. Hopefully the US cracking down on this particular network will allow us to pierce through to other networks operating in Europe.
ReplyDeleteeven if you will destroy ISIS there will be other group which will take its place the problem people cant realise is they dont fight organization they fight ideology.
DeleteThis really misses the mark.
DeleteWe are witnesses to a long slow civil war within Islam. Our primary goal is to not give the bad side easy victories and prestige. They do that when they make the west cower. Crushing ISIS is not merely an end in itself, it is *part of* crushing the ideology because it helps the good guys win the prestige war within Islam.
We don't have to invade and reform, but we must respond to attacks in a decisive way.
Dan, I agree that this is a war of ideas (I'll throw in that it's one that the various Western nations appear to have no idea how to wage, which may explain why the majority of the gains against Jihadism since 9/11 have been on the battlefield), and that Daesh's influence on these noxious Jihadist trends will outlive their base of operations in Iraq and Syria; I was careful to say they would cease to exist in Iraq and Syria, instead of as an organization, precisely because of that. While Daesh is part of a larger Jihadist ideology, the innovations they've made in Jihad, and the appeal their call has when compared to other Jihadist groups, does make their destruction a worthy goal for those who wish to mitigate this threat. As cold as this may sound, the true danger posed by Daesh's tactics isn't their brutality; it's the mass appeal their particular call to Jihad has had when compared to other Islamist organizations.
DeleteWith that said, it's fair to point out that the rise of Daesh being a threat, or an opportunity, varies from country to country. The threat and opportunity posed by Daesh is different for the United States and Israel. In the case of your homeland, Dan, reservations about whether Daesh being destroyed will improve Israel's situation are well justified. If Iran and Israel continue to remain enemies, Iran and its sphere plainly poses a greater threat to Israel than Daesh and the Sunnis at this point. Considering Daesh has effectively rolled back many of Iran's gains in Iraq, is currently tying up Hizbullah in Syria and Iraq (which also ensures Hizbullah continues to lose standing among the Sunni in Lebanon), and has shown no real interest in attacking Israel, Israel's interests in the region could very well be better served by Daesh remaining. Destroying Daesh will inevitably strengthen Iran's position in the region.
(LK, this might be a double post, in which case, my apologies)
DeleteDan, I agree that this is a war of ideas (I'll throw in that it's one that the various Western nations appear to have no idea how to wage, which may explain why the majority of the gains against Jihadism since 9/11 have been on the battlefield), and that Daesh's influence on these noxious Jihadist trends will outlive their base of operations in Iraq and Syria; I was careful to say they would cease to exist in Iraq and Syria, instead of as an organization, precisely because of that. While Daesh is part of a larger Jihadist ideology, the innovations they've made in Jihad, and the appeal their call has when compared to other Jihadist groups, does make their destruction a worthy goal for those who wish to mitigate this threat. As cold as this may sound, the true danger posed by Daesh's tactics isn't their brutality; it's the mass appeal their particular call to Jihad has had when compared to other Islamist organizations.
With that said, it's fair to point out that the rise of Daesh being a threat, or an opportunity, varies from country to country. The threat and opportunity posed by Daesh is different for the United States and Israel. In the case of your homeland, Dan, reservations about whether Daesh being destroyed will improve Israel's situation are well justified. If Iran and Israel continue to remain enemies, Iran and it's sphere plainly poses a greater threat to Israel than Daesh and the Sunnis at this point. Considering Daesh has effectively rolled back many of Iran's gains in Iraq, is currently tying up Hizbullah in Syria and Iraq (which also ensures Hizbullah continues to lose standing among the Sunni in Lebanon), and has shown no real interest in attacking Israel, Israel's interests in the region could very well be better served by Daesh remaining. Destroying Daesh will inevitably strengthen Iran's position in the region.